Rossi did say Stoner "wasn't trying hard enough" on the 2010 Ducati, independent of any statement by Burgess, which some might consider makes his assessment of how hard MM might have been trying on the current Honda which he also has never ridden not necessarily totally reliable.
Rossi did say Stoner "wasn't trying hard enough" on the 2010 Ducati, independent of any statement by Burgess, which some might consider makes his assessment of how hard MM might have been trying on the current Honda which he also has never ridden not necessarily totally reliable.
Marquenzo?. So you acknowledge both were faster than Valentino over the last 3 races which was rather Valentino's problem. Being faster than one of them would have sufficed, particularly if that rider had been Lorenzo.
Joined Oct 2008
6K Posts | 5K+
In Cider
Joined Apr 2011
1K Posts | 87+
Pangea
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
I am aware Burgess made this statement, hence why I said Rossi was "told" and certainly must have believed it. I'm not misrepresenting it as I'm using it to highlight the fact Rossi has believed his imagination about other manufacturers capabilities, which were proven to be spectacularly wrong. But his assessment that Marc on his RCV at Valencia was capable of more is okay with you? This is a reasonable position for Rossi to make such a statement of assessment?
By the way I had a personal exchange with Burgess regarding his assessment of the Ducati while at Yamaha, and relevance to his infamous 80 sec statement. At Indy. And he had a very similar opinion about Stoner back then, paralleling Rossi today about Marc at Valencia, when I asked him what compelled him to make an assessment on the Ducati, where he had rubbished Stoner saying he was content to follow; Burgess said to me ( from memory, closely a quote) 'Well didn't you see the race? Stoner followed the entire time and never even tried once to make a pass.' I posted this many years ago after attending Indy. And my exchange with Burgess as a casual spectator. Given Rossi and Burgess shared sentiments, it's laughable now that Rossi would blurt out the same absurdity of assessing the RCV capabilities. At a moment where not only was it absurd, but revealed the element of sour grapes to boot.
Last edited:
The crux of the whole matter, and what initiated the whole circus, were Rossi's Thursday press conference remarks concerning how hard MM had tried in the preceding PI race (to which the answer rather self evidently imo is hard enough given he won the race , btw).
Jumkie and I have both made the point that he has previously made a similar assessment in regard to another bike he hadn't ridden, the 2010 Ducati, and one of the then current Ducati factory riders, an assessment which did not prove out to be accurate.
Rather than address this point you chose to go "straw man" and nitpick about a Jerry Burgess comment concerning that bike which Jumkie perhaps a little spuriously mentioned.
I merely pointed out that there was a relevant direct contemporary quote from Valentino.
Last edited:
You first mentioned that Rossi assessed another manufacturer. You said "from the last time he assessed another manufacturer, which he believed could be fixed in 80 secs, as he was told."
Firstly, Burgess said it. Rossi didn't make any assessment, at least no publicly.
Secondly, Burgess didn't actually say that the bike could be fixed in 80 seconds.
As I said "He didn't say that he could fix the Duke in 80 seconds. He was discussing the set-up woes of the 'lesser riders on the Ducati', who set up their suspension too softly, in his view."
That's very different to saying that he could fix the Duke in 80 seconds.
This misconception must be corrected.
Agreed.
Agreed.
There was no need to address it, because I agreed with your observation. You will agree that, logically, the fact that I did not object to that point does not necessarily mean that I disagree with that point. In fact, my lack of opposition to the that point should ordinarily lead to the opposite inference.
That's inaccurate. I didn't raise the issue of the Burgess point to refute Jumkie's wider argument. That is a detail which you've added.
I merely felt the need to correct what has been a widely misunderstood comment from Burgess. I've actually discussed this at length on this forum before: Burgess never said that he could fix the Duke in 80 seconds.
Fair enough, I formed the obviously superficial impression you were disagreeing with the wider argument.
Jerry's comment was specifically in regard to something he had observed concerning a satellite bike or bikes and rider(s). He was I believe still wrong, no version of the 2010 Ducati was fixable by anyone no matter who was riding imo.
As I have previously posted, and you may have seen at the time, JB when a guest on the Australian TV motogp coverage during Valentino's enforced absence with injury in 2010, presumably before Valentino and he had decided on the move to Ducati, expressed strong doubts concerning Ducati's capabilities in comparison with Yamaha.
Last edited:
Imo one has to be blind to not see that MM acted like Lorenzo's bodyguard in the last race. Same way as one has to be blind to not see how Marquez was intentionally slowing Rossi at Sepang.The issue that many are unable to understand wasn't that Marquez was trying to pass Rossi (even if I have a low opinion about Rossi, he's not so stupid to blame someone just for trying to beat him), but rather that he was doing those passes on lap 5-6 while slowing down Rossi. If MM had a slower pace than Rossi in the first laps (not at least not faster) he wouldn't have tried to pass him as fighting on lap 5-6 doesn't make any sense. If MM wanted to win the race or even get third it wouldn't make sense waste tyres and take such risks on lap 5. Everyone who follow the races knows that.
If he, when leading, had a faster pace then Rossi wouldn't have tried to pass him but rather follow him. What happened at Sepang was quite clear.
For the sport this finale was a sad day, although I admit I'm unable to feel sorry for Rossi at all. Some might say it's karma.
About the ones who believe Rossi tried to play mind games like he did for years: sometimes the most simple explanation is the correct one. I believe Rossi wasn't playing any mind game at all. I don;t think he ever played mind games at all. Rather I believe his fears (in teh case of Sepang),arrogance childish behaviour and lack sportmanship made him say foolish sentences which associated with his victories led people to believe he was a fine strategist and him being more thoughtful than he actually is.
If he, when leading, had a faster pace then Rossi wouldn't have tried to pass him but rather follow him. What happened at Sepang was quite clear.
For the sport this finale was a sad day, although I admit I'm unable to feel sorry for Rossi at all. Some might say it's karma.
About the ones who believe Rossi tried to play mind games like he did for years: sometimes the most simple explanation is the correct one. I believe Rossi wasn't playing any mind game at all. I don;t think he ever played mind games at all. Rather I believe his fears (in teh case of Sepang),arrogance childish behaviour and lack sportmanship made him say foolish sentences which associated with his victories led people to believe he was a fine strategist and him being more thoughtful than he actually is.
Last edited:
Again, you seem to have a problem with temporal sequencing.
The Sepang race was after the PI race and Rossi's remarks at the pre-Sepang press conference impugning MM's integrity. If he chose to give MM extra motivation to race him legally at Sepang after a race at PI which MM won and during which he made no hard moves on either contender, his choice. It was also Valentino who was trying unsuccessfully to pass MM at Sepang, not the other way around, after having previously been caught and passed by Lorenzo.
The remedy at both PI and Sepang was in Rossi's hands, either be faster than MM or independently of this get ahead and stay ahead of Jorge. If he didn't have the early race and/or qualifying pace to achieve the latter, his problem and no-one else's.
Last edited:
Yes - that was certainly interesting and explains his reluctance to leave Yamaha for Ducati.
